9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sivaramakrishnan, Advocate For the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per B. Ravichandran The appellant is aggrieved by order dt. 22.10.2009 of Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai. 2. The appellants are engaged in the business of canvassing advertisements for publications like Daily Thanthi, Rani Weekly and getting fixed retainership fee for their work. Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tivity of any person should be dealt with as part of advertising agency services. The earlier clarification is not to include such activity for taxation which was later withdrawn in 2007 to apply applicable tax under advertising agency service. The present proceedings to tax them under 'Business Auxiliary Service' is not tenable in as much as they are not involving in any promotional activ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on limitation. He submits that clarifications relied upon by appellant are not relevant to the activities of business promotion which was undertaken by the appellant. Admittedly, appellant canvassed for more business for their clients. Though the activity may be with reference to advertisement, it is nothing but promotion of advertising services rendered by clients. It is not an activity of spac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities of space selling has no relevance to the activities of the appellant in the present case. The appellants are engaged in improving advertisement revenue of the client. In other words, they are promoting the services of clients. Such service on the part of the client is exempted by itself will not make the appellant as not providing any taxable service. The overall ambit of Business Auxiliary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant acquired business from M/s.Sovereign Media marketing (P) Ltd. who was never subjected to service tax for the same activities. This admittedly led to bonafides of the appellant. We find in such a situation, the defence of appellant against extended period as well as imposition of penalty under Section 78 merits consideration and the liability on that count cannot be sustained. In view of ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
